# Warnock's Dilemma **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 13, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999 "2010-10-13T14:42:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/1 "2010-10-13T14:42:16Z")
I had not heard of this concept before running across it at Wikipedia ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock's\_Dilemma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_Dilemma) ) just now. Some time ago a discussion here ( [Anyone recall this classified ad from the Times? - Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=509561) ) focused on the idea of 0-response and low-response threads with ideas that might fall into the main group listed at Wiki: > [@](#): > > “ The problem with no response is that there are five possible interpretations: > 1.The post is correct, well-written information that needs no follow-up commentary. There’s nothing more to say except “Yeah, what he said.” > 2.The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out. > 3.No one read the post, for whatever reason. > 4.No one understood the post, but won’t ask for clarification, for whatever reason. > 5.No one cares about the post, for whatever reason. > ” > —Bryan C. Warnock, [1] Perhaps further discussion is in order. Perhaps **NineToTheSky** , **Chez Guevara** , **mhendo** , **jjimm** , **BigT** , and any of the many others who read but didn’t post in that old discussion might find some new points to make on the issue(s). Perhaps this thread will be a prime example. ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/2 "2010-10-13T15:12:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Perhaps this thread will be a prime example. \* Oh no it won’t! There might be a sixth reason: that a mod finds it too pointless and closes it before anyone replies. (Pace \*\*twickster \*\*and \*\*Marley23 \*\*:)) ---
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/3 "2010-10-13T15:22:38Z")
> [@NineToTheSky](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Perhaps this thread will be a prime example. \* > > Oh no it won’t! > > There might be a sixth reason: that a mod finds it too pointless and closes it before anyone replies. (Pace \*\*twickster \*\*and \*\*Marley23 \*\*:)) I think that’s a valid point! It’s surprising to me that our old ideas are at least as good as the Wiki ones. But I think our lack of summarizing effectively kept us from being able to coin a term for our “findings.” However, **Chez Guevara** ’s appeal to the work of **Earthling** in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10945176&postcount=55) and our subsequent commentary and postulation ought to demonstrate that we were on the right track. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/4 "2010-10-13T16:52:04Z")
I would add a #6: People are interested in and care about the issue, but don’t really feel they have anything to add to the discussion. This is, perhaps, sort of like #1, but a bit different. I know i’ve read OPs before, especially ones that provide information about something, and have just thought to myself, “That’s interesting,” and moved on without responding. In some cases, i’ve even felt that i might have something to say on the issue, but that a proper explanation of my position would take a fairly long and considered post, and i just didn’t want to take the time and effort right at that moment. I think that something similar might have happened in my thread [Judge declares mistrial, overturns verdict in file-sharing case](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=485059). People saw my announcement, read the OP, and just moved on. It could be that no-one responded because people didn’t want to get into one of the board’s typical long, drawn-out debates on file-sharing, which probably would have gone through exactly the same arguments that had been hashed out in dozens of prior threads. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/5 "2010-10-13T17:02:12Z")
> [@Zeldar](#): > > I had not heard of this concept before running across it at Wikipedia ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock's\_Dilemma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_Dilemma) ) just now. > > Some time ago a discussion here ( [Anyone recall this classified ad from the Times? - Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=509561) ) focused on the idea of 0-response and low-response threads with ideas that might fall into the main group listed at Wiki: > > > [@](#): > > > > “ The problem with no response is that there are five possible interpretations: > > 1.The post is correct, well-written information that needs no follow-up commentary. There’s nothing more to say except “Yeah, what he said.” > > 2.The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out. > > 3.No one read the post, for whatever reason. > > 4.No one understood the post, but won’t ask for clarification, for whatever reason. > > 5.No one cares about the post, for whatever reason. > > ” > > —Bryan C. Warnock, [1] > > Perhaps further discussion is in order. Perhaps **NineToTheSky** , **Chez Guevara** , **mhendo** , **jjimm** , **BigT** , and any of the many others who read but didn’t post in that old discussion might find some new points to make on the issue(s). > > Perhaps this thread will be a prime example. TLDR. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/6 "2010-10-13T17:07:35Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I would add a #6: > > People are interested in and care about the issue, but don’t really feel they have anything to add to the discussion. This is, perhaps, sort of like #1, but a bit different. I find this to be true quite often. There are times when what I do post in response is only slightly more than “ditto” or “+1” or whatever serves that same basic purpose. I do try to add some extra thought or spin on an idea if I get that far, but as for adding to the general understanding of the issue, I could just as easily stayed quiet. It’s fairly easy to fall into a pattern of looking up something online to link to where it’s almost what you would have said if you took the time. This post is an example of one where I could have just as easily said, “yes, that.” ---
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/7 "2010-10-13T17:12:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > TLDR. #7? ---
**Author:** ![Chez\_Guevara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/aeb1de/32.png) [@Chez\_Guevara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chez_Guevara)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/8 "2010-10-13T17:40:15Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > People are interested in and care about the issue, but don’t really feel they have anything to add to the discussion. This is, perhaps, sort of like #1, but a bit different. Strictly pertaining to specific questions there exists the possibility that people are interested in the issue, do some research, but cannot find anything substantive to contribute. They fail to respond not because they don’t want to but because they can’t. This is definitely not covered by #1 because a straight question begs a follow-up commentary or answer. It may be covered by your reason, but personally I consider it to be a slight variation. ---
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/9 "2010-10-13T18:07:48Z")
> [@Chez\_Guevara](#): > > > [@mhendo](#): > > > > People are interested in and care about the issue, but don’t really feel they have anything to add to the discussion. This is, perhaps, sort of like #1, but a bit different. > > Strictly pertaining to specific questions there exists the possibility that people are interested in the issue, do some research, but cannot find anything substantive to contribute. They fail to respond not because they don’t want to but because they can’t. > > This is definitely not covered by #1 because a straight question begs a follow-up commentary or answer. It may be covered by your reason, but personally I consider it to be a slight variation. Just to clarify: are you saying this is or is not an additional point to be added to the original five of Warnock’s? I see that I failed to count **NineToTheSky** ’s #6, so we really have it and **mhendo** ’s #6, plus the #7 (quite valid, I have to say) from **Shodan** which could be argued to be included as a rewording (or a corollary) of Warnock’s #3 (maybe even #5). ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/10 "2010-10-16T13:26:39Z")
So I was just going to let some of you guys deal with this, and come back later when I’d thought of something clever, but I realize I’ve actually been invited. Cool! And I consider Chez Guevera’s idea to be a variation of #1. I think it’d be better to modify #1 to fit his idea, as it fits #1 in spirit. ---
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/11 "2010-10-16T13:44:35Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > So I was just going to let some of you guys deal with this, and come back later when I’d thought of something clever, but I realize I’ve actually been invited. Cool! > > And I consider Chez Guevera’s idea to be a variation of #1. I think it’d be better to modify #1 to fit his idea, as it fits #1 in spirit. Thanks for adding your opinion. It won’t be a complete thread until **jjimm** has made an appearance, but something makes me think we’re overlooking at least one additional point. Along the lines of TLDR I suspect the possibility of a mouseover causing the potential responder to go away without adding to the view count ought to be allowed as a reason for no response. Whether this is just a special case of (3) is debatable, I guess. As of this post, 9 replies and 271 views have occurred to this thread, so the Reply/View ratio is on the order of 1/30. If only the other 160 Views had said why they chose not to say anything, we’d have more data. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/12 "2010-10-16T15:52:05Z")
Overall, bucketizing the reasons is a game we can play to arbitrary degrees of detail. And to increasingly little gain as we go along. Warnock proposes 5 mostly non-overlapping areas. Each of the 5 could be further subdivided and there’s room for several additional categories near the current ones. Additionally, there are really two questions here: “Why did viewer #4 elect not to reply?” And “Why have all those 250 viewers elected to not reply?”. Pretty clearly the latter is what mattters more to the author of the OP, but the former is the only thing that matters to the individual viewer contemplating posting. My bottom line is it seems a mostly sterile topic. And hence one not worthy of too much in the way of thoughtful reply. We can of course have all the playful or non-serious replies we want. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/13 "2010-10-16T15:58:44Z")
I guess I’ll have to bone up on what it is exactly that makes people write zillions of responses to (e.g.) **Starving Artist** in the Pit, while I’ll post something I think is perfectly reasonable and cogent, but which immediately kills the thread for good-guess that makes me something of an Anti-Troll. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/14 "2010-10-16T19:23:38Z")
I did it again! ---
**Author:** ![figure9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@figure9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/figure9)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/15 "2010-10-17T00:52:20Z")
Is it possible that the post is a well written question but no one knows the answer? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warnocks-dilemma/556999/16 "2010-10-18T16:44:23Z")
Here I am. My opinion on low view and no answers threads: 1. The question in the title is obvious; 2. the answer is unambiguous; and 3. nobody knows the answer. FTR my Guadeloupe thread ended up, after 8 years, with 70 views and one response from me, mourning it. ETA: [Here it is](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=114919). (I’m divorced now, too.)